Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • This article is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The article complies sufficiently with the MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • There are a number of dead links, shown at {http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=1930_FIFA_World_Cup}; others such as premium Tv and sky ports have moved and redirect to the front page of the web site. I have reformatted several cites which were bare html links. There are others which need converting using citation templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • {http://www.v-brazil.com/} is not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is broad in scope Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • and focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • The article is stable Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • tagged and licensed Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Captions OK Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I am placing the article on hold for seven days whilst the references are fixed, otherwise OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   • OK looks to be all fixed now, GA status confirmed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)